Ours is a competitive society.  We compete for recognition, the finest goods, the sexiest companions, the best paying jobs, the most shining trophies, the biggest laughs, the top honors, or just a simple pat on the back.  Being called a “real competitor” is a genuine compliment; and in order to be a true winner, you have to be the latest and greatest—last year’s winners are today’s has-beens.  Even coming in second after a valiant effort is most often looked down on as being trivial and insignificant because, after all, as the T-shirt says, “second place is first loser.”

           In fact, it is becoming more and more difficult to insult someone without using the word “loser.”  Stupid may be seen as “stoopid” and is taken to be funny, while “psycho” and “weird” do not carry the undercurrents of dangerous any longer.  No one seems to know what an imbecile is, and words like “retarded” and “moron” are merely politically incorrect.  Most epithets and invectives just bounce off the modern ear, and references to immaturity such as “jerk” no longer carry any real weight.  But just shape your fingers in a letter “L” and your insult will come across just fine. 

Who’s number one?

           Competition may be defined in several ways.  Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary defines it as “contention of two or more for the same object or for superiority.”  Webster’s gives rival as synonymous, and goes on to say, “one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one may possess.”  Noted anthropologist Margaret Mead, in her book Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive Peoples defines it as “the act of seeking or endeavoring to gain what another is endeavoring to gain at the same time.”  Physical education teacher Reuben Frost gives an unusually broad stroke to the idea when he says that “individuals can compete against their opponents, against established norms, against nature, against their previous record, or against a group.”  The common thread in all these definitions is that a person or team is attempting to best another. 

           Competition is clearly a powerful force,  however, there are other motivational influences, specifically cooperation and idealism.  Yet Margaret Mead points out that these may not always be opposed to one another:  “… No society is exclusively competitive or exclusively cooperative.  The very existence of highly competitive groups implies cooperation within the groups.  Both competitive and cooperative habits must coexist within the society.”  However, according to anthropologist Ashley Montagu:

Competition means to strive against others to achieve the same or similar goals.  Cooperation means to strive with others to achieve the same or similar goals.  Cooperation … is a far more efficient way of achieving any objective than competition is.  Cooperation seeks to bring out the best in everyone.  Competition, in spite of the oft-reiterated statements to the contrary, in the long run has the effect of making it impossible for large numbers of individuals to exhibit what is in them.

           Idealism may be considered by many as merely an extended form of competition, in which the “ideal” is seen as something to be obtained or surpassed; however, this comparison falls short of the true aim of idealism, which is the realization of a goal for its own sake without regard to any sort of rivalry.  Most idealists consciously recognize that genuinely worthwhile goals are not necessarily attainable, and that the act of striving is as much of a reward as the final result.  But then, if a goal is in fact achieved, the person tends to move the focus of those previous efforts to some other area.

Our number one priority

           As our young minds and perspectives develop during childhood, we are taught the importance of setting proper goals, arranging them into an order of priority, and then striving to achieve them.  But early in our education, we are presented with the idea that the chief means to these ends is competition, especially in academics and athletics.  In the academic area, rewards for achieving goals might include prizes for winning spelling bees or “math-lete” competitions, or maybe something as simple as getting good grades or acquiring certain privileges.

           However, it is the latter area, athletics, which proves to be the more controversial of the two, for it is here that the element of competition is more evident.  A child needs to be motivated to play hard at a sport in order to get the most physical benefit from it.  As Reuben Frost says in his book Psychological Concepts Applied to Physical Education and Coaching, “Motivation is the key to accomplishment … incentives have a great deal of influence on man’s behavior.”  He continues: 

To be liked and respected by one’s peers, to be an accepted member of a team or group, to know that one looks well in the eyes of one’s associates, to be invited to parties and social function … many other social needs are important determinants of behavior … There is no doubt that both competition and cooperation are … important factors in the schools of today.  The degree to which competition is emphasized and cooperation is encouraged has much to do with the climate in which learning takes place and development proceeds.

           Despite this, many psychologists have begun to seriously question the value of competition as motivation.  Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner, professor of child development at Cornell University, was quoted in Science Digest in a 1974 article entitled Does Kids’ Competition Really Make Better Adults? as saying that he believes that winning has become too important and that being obsessed with winning is unhealthy.  In the same article, writer Katherine Bryn quotes Dr. Roscoe C. Brown, Jr. of New York University as saying, “Right now, the conviction that sports are doing what we say they are doing for our kids … is a myth.  We just don’t know the psychological and emotional effects.”  The American Medical Association is also concerned, having issued a statement from their committee on the Medical Aspects of Sports urging that health and recreational values be stressed rather than competition, and objected to high pressure, excessive publicity, and exploitation in any form. 

           The degree of competitiveness exhibited by any individual tends to be directly linked to the amount of importance placed on the prize to be attained, as well as a reflection of the participant’s general attitude toward the other competitors.  Again, Dr. Bronfenbrenner says, “How we regard opponents is important to our behavior, whether in sports, politics, or war.  Seeing the opposition as an enemy to be defeated at all costs tends to lead to a denigration of rivals and to open hostility.”  But far from being properly tempered with time, our competitive spirit only intensifies as we age.

           Upon reaching their high school years, teens become bombarded with incentives to compete in everything from art shows to science fairs to writing contests to music festivals.  Athletically, boys compete to make the team, while girls compete to make the cheerleading squad.  But eventually, this ravenous ethic is not satisfied with membership in the beta club or being team captain, but must drive us forward to settle for no less than valedictorian or a spot in the Who’s Who.  Finally, tension can become so intense in the drive to gain acceptance to the most exclusive colleges that in extreme cases those who fail to make the admission standard may enter into depression or drug abuse, or even attempt suicide.  And it doesn’t stop there—competition appears yet again at the highest academic levels as well as in the workplace environment. 

Looking out for number one

           It is at his point in our lives where competition takes a decidedly ugly turn—we now are thrust into an environment in which winning is viewed as essential for mere survival.  Here is where many support the competitive ethic as a necessary evil, and claim that it can have positive results.  Consider this quote from boxing champion Sugar Ray Robinson: “The first time I was ever in the Golden Gloves, I got my name in the paper.  After that, I felt above stealin’ or drinkin’ or takin’ dope.”  In “The Qualities of the Early Americans,” George Maxey declares, “The Creator made life a competitive game and wherever there is competition there will be those who succeed and those who fail.” 

           In today’s business environment, competition has become the foundational motivation behind our capitalistic way of life.  Therefore, varying degrees of economic success, now seen as primary standards of personal success, tend to encourage social inequalities and class stratification.  To quote Karl Mannheim, “Competition among unequals always has a demoralizing effect.  Its psychological impact differs according to the type of rewards, especially if they form part of our money mores.”  Or as Bertrand Russell put it, “What people fear when they engage in the struggle is not that they will fail to get their breakfast next morning, but that they will fail to outshine their neighbors.”

           Such an overwhelming drive to win can easily lead businesses to adopt highly unethical, or even criminal practices.  For example, when a small businessman is compelled by fear of failure to adopt certain cutthroat policies, he can all too often be heard to accuse his larger competitors of those very practices.  By this point, morality becomes dictated by profitability.  According to an article by George B. Leonard in the Minneapolis Tribune entitled “False Worship of Winning,” “We only have to look back into history to see where the mindless worship of hot competition can lead.  The ancient Olympics, under the encroachment of professionalism, with its demand for winning at all costs, gradually fell prey to bribery, and other forms of corruption.” 

           Finally, the competitive ethic has so permeated our society that it even dictates what we laugh at.  Most of the laugh track moments on modern sitcoms come not after a comically awkward situation for one of the characters, from a genuinely embarrassing misunderstanding, or from a simple instance of “cuteness,” but from the best put-down, the most damaging insinuation, or the jab so bombastic that the target has no response.  The pervasiveness of such a superiority-driven humor ethic has caused even Vogue magazine to run an article advising women in the male-dominated workplace to learn the “male” characteristic of competitive assertiveness.  In an article about the “male art of ‘roast and boast,’” Barbara Langstern quotes Dr, Barbara Bunker: “all-male norms … by definition are somewhat competitive because, when men get together, that’s how their interaction tends to be.  For example, one thing men do that women don’t is tell a lot of jokes.  The joking is a ‘can you top this’ process, as is talk about trivia, sports and similar topics.”

We’re number one

           Many Christians are aware of the problems that can arise from the competitive way of life.  The National Catholic Reporter states, “The symbols of the self-sufficient, competitive individual are so deeply ingrained in our character that thorough-going political and social reform becomes virtually impossible.”  Concerning the church’s position on this mindset, Al Krass writes in his “Letter to a June Graduate,” “To work for a more cooperative society, based on non-materialistic, people-affirming values, is one giant of a task … Yet no institution ought to be better equipped to participate in such transformations than the church.”

           But does the modern institutional church hold forth this ideal of brotherhood and cooperation?  On the contrary, we have allowed this worldly attitude to infiltrate our motivation for building our churches, regardless of whether or not we are truly building God’s.  This shows itself on a number of levels; there can be competition between denominations, between local churches, between the churches of a denomination, and within a local church. 

           Denominations sponsor competitions in everything from talent shows to softball leagues to Bible trivia nights; from Sunday School attendance pins to certificates for the fastest growing youth program.  One church put out a brochure listing their qualifications for ministry as: 7.5 acres, 10,000 square feet of carpeting, 300 tons of air conditioning, a 32-channel sound system, and over 4000 feet of pews.  David Wilkerson wrote in an article for his newsletter entitled “The Fatal Race” about another example: “Pastors and evangelists are competing to build the biggest, most unique churches and headquarters.  One minister friend confided in me, in all seriousness, “Pastor J__ is building a church of 119,000 square feet—so I had my architect redo our plans and expand our new church to 121,000 square feet.  I want the most square feet of any church in my state.”

           Such attitudes, far from being “healthy” competition, simply serve to illustrate the “one-upmanship” often engaged in by the modern world, and how it currently permeates Western churches.  And sadly, one primary motive for this kind of notoriety is summed up in a statement made in John’s Gospel, in verse 43 of chapter twelve, which says of the chief rulers of the Jews who spoke out against Jesus: “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” 

           Failure to be on guard against the potential damage caused by these attitudes can all too easily make us prone to falling to the subtle temptations which accompany them.  No one is exempt; winners may succumb to pride and boastfulness, and those who lose can become down-hearted or envious of the accomplishments of others.

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

           Bible passages such as Ephesians 4 (verse 6 is quoted above) depict for us the perfect and complete unity of God, particularly as we in the Church understand the idea of describing Him as the Trinity.  There is no case of strife among the ranks of Heaven except where the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah records Lucifer’s attempt to “one-up” the Most High and usurp His almighty authority.  The result of his attempt is clear; the ultimate outcome is tragic.

           There are many instances in Scripture which portray various people who view some endeavor as competitive when by its nature it should not be seen as such.  In the Old Testament, the eighteenth chapter of First Samuel tells of King Saul’s jealous rage against David, when after the defeat of Goliath the people sang, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.”  Although David had none but the fullest respect for the king, Saul’s anger vexed him to the point that he tried to kill David. 

           In the New Testament, we read in the first chapter of Philippians of some who preached, as Paul put it, “out of envy and strife … of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds” (verses 15 and 16)—no doubt attempting to build up their own reputations.  Also, in the first chapter of First Corinthians, Paul rebukes the divisive attitude of which he had heard reports, saying that “every one of you says, “I am of Paul,’ and “I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’”  In his third epistle, John writes about a man named Diotrephes who had asserted his way into leadership, but did so because he “loves to have the preeminence among them,” and goes on to tell how he will oppose this man upon his arrival. 

           At times in the Gospels, when Jesus’ disciples questioned among themselves as to which of them would be the greatest, he would reverse their competitive reasoning with such statements as, “Whoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant,” or “Whoever will humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.”  Paul echoes this call to humility in the book of Philippians: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each one of you esteem others as better than yourselves.”  How can Christians achieve such a humble attitude as described above if a competitive mind-set is pushing them to try to set themselves above others in some area?

           In a final attempt for some sense of legitimacy, some would resort to the athletic imagery used by Paul in his illustration in chapter nine of First Corinthians.  Verse 24 states, “Don’t you know that all the runners run in a race, but only one receives the prize?  So run that you may obtain.”  But the very next verse explains why he used this analogy: “And everyone who strives for the mastery is moderate in all things.”  He goes on to describe this moderation as the discipline that an athlete uses to train and prepare for his event, and compares that to the discipline and determination necessary to endure the path that we all have before us.  Later, Paul writes to Timothy that “I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith,” which tells us that all those who complete the race shall win the prize.  But nowhere is it implied that our utmost is to be compared to that of others, or that our success is dependent on beating someone else to the finish line; otherwise, how could we hope to compete with Jesus?